Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

You are missing the point by such a wide margin that I don't even know how to address your "point."

It is an established scientific theory (a theory being an established and tested concept that is supported by evidence. There are very few "facts" involved in higher science) that the big bang theory was not only the phenomenon that created our universe, but also that time itself did not exist prior to the big bang. If time didn't exist before the bang, then logically the first event in the history of the universe is the big bang. It is the start point for the universe.

Your anti-science idiocy aside, it is well established that the universe was created by the big bang. If you can show me an astrophysicist who disagrees, I would be interested in reading his work.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

You are missing the point by such a wide margin that I don't even know how to address your "point."

It is an established scientific theory (a theory being an established and tested concept that is supported by evidence. There are very few "facts" involved in higher science) that the big bang theory was not only the phenomenon that created our universe, but also that time itself did not exist prior to the big bang. If time didn't exist before the bang, then logically the first event in the history of the universe is the big bang. It is the start point for the universe.

Your anti-science idiocy aside, it is well established that the universe was created by the big bang. If you can show me an astrophysicist who disagrees, I would be interested in reading his work.

Calling it a theory as if that makes it open to debate is evidence that you don't know enough about science to be arguing with anyone.

It is a theory the same way gravity is a theory. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting it and nothing to cast any doubt on it's reality.

Chill your jets big guy, your simply over your head trying to claim that the big bang is anything other than the established start of the universe. Ditto trying to claim time existed prior to its occurrence. It simply didn't. Time is a dimension exactly like length and width. Before the big bang there was no length, width, depth, or time. That is well established and supported.

The Catholic Church has even accepted all of this as facts. You arguing it can only be A. Evidence of your ignorance, or B. Proof that you are anti science.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Calling it a theory as if that makes it open to debate is evidence that you don't know enough about science to be arguing with anyone.

It is a theory the same way gravity is a theory. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting it and nothing to cast any doubt on it's reality.

Chill your jets big guy, your simply over your head trying to claim that the big bang is anything other than the established start of the universe. Ditto trying to claim time existed prior to its occurrence. It simply didn't. Time is a dimension exactly like length and width. Before the big bang there was no length, width, depth, or time. That is well established and supported.

The Catholic Church has even accepted all of this as facts. You arguing it can only be A. Evidence of your ignorance, or B. Proof that you are anti science.

Comparing how much is known about gravity to how much is know about BBT, is a stretch. A hug stretch.

Am I over my head talking about the science of the big bang? Abso-fucking-lutely. I am not an astrophysicist.

I started by asking for evidence. And per usual, you go off assuming I am some hayseed-hick, anti-science, radical religious nut-job, embarrassing intelligent republicans like yourself. Which leads you to come in with your smugness and condescension.

I said your link talks about the Big Bang as "its development with time" and not as the origin of the universe. And I said that because what I've read on that is incomplete. Matter of fact, here. Read this.

1) What is the Big Bang theory?
a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang

In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.

There is a ton more in this article, so yes that is just a sample size.

If you can show me an astrophysicist who disagrees, I would be interested in reading his work.

Classic example of someone who supports something like TBB. Namely the legitimacy of their defense starts and ends with what spam said above. The lame "gravity is only a theory as wel" is BS as well. The debate starts at a fundamental level with those who believe science can, does, or eventually will explain everything in the universe with absolute and definite truth, and those who don't. If you happen to support the former, it's easy to see how many theories, despite myriads of unsupporting, and even falsifying evidence, are still considered fact. This is the backwards model scientists essentially use: During research falsifying evidence is simply ignored because the assumption that (X) happened is fact, so in affect, whatever (X) required to take place must only be evident, otherwise (X) wouldn't have happened. The ultimate verification of any theory isn't derived from a plethora of confirmative examples which will of course be found, it comes from its ability to withstand the toughest falsifying evidence. To compensate for their lack of devotion to this truth, many scientists are master sophists.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Classic example of someone who supports something like TBB. Namely the legitimacy of their defense starts and ends with what spam said above. The lame "gravity is only a theory as wel" is BS as well. . If you happen to support the former, it's easy to see how many theories, despite myriads of unsupporting, and even falsifying evidence, are still considered fact. This is the backwards model scientists essentially use: During research falsifying evidence is simply ignored because the assumption that (X) happened is fact, so in affect, whatever (X) required to take place must only be evident, otherwise (X) wouldn't have happened. The ultimate verification of any theory isn't derived from a plethora of confirmative examples which will of course be found, it comes from its ability to withstand the toughest falsifying evidence. To compensate for their lack of devotion to this truth, many scientists are master sophists.

I am curious as to what you gain from being so anti-science? Hang with me here for a second before you attack the question and really try to answer what is it that you gain from such an anti-science stance. I want to know because there was a time in this country when geting an education was a good thing. Now a percentage of our population is developing a negative stance on education. It doesn't make sense to me and I ask you because I think you might have the ability to actually critically think about my question and give a meaningful answer that isn't political.

Now you might come back and say you aren't anti-science but your paragraph on top is full of anti-science bias. Look at what you say:

The debate starts at a fundamental level with those who believe science can, does, or eventually will explain everything in the universe with absolute and definite truth, and those who don't

If the debate starts with those who think science can, does, will explain everything in the universe, you are starting the pro-science side of the debate at an extreme that just isn't true. This is a complete overstatement of a pro-science stance and immediately puts pro-science people in an impossible box. I know a lot of people who work at what would be described as scientists and I don't think any of them would subscribe to science's ability to determine everything. In fact, most true scientists marvel at the idea that as soon as we determine one thing, we open a dozen more questions that we don't know. Knowledge is truly infinite and we will always be chasing the questions that opens up from our previous answer. Scientists are usually more humbled by knowledge than arrogant as your premise begins.

Secondly, The ultimate verification of any theory isn't derived from a plethora of confirmative examples which will of course be found, it comes from its ability to withstand the toughest falsifying evidence. To compensate for their lack of devotion to this truth, many scientists are master sophists

This reeks of anger and is completely dismissive of the "peer review" that is a cornerstone of science. Any scientific experiment that yields data should be able to be replicated. I mean, c'mon, this is 7th grade science. As a grad student, I never read a single journal article without cross-referencing the peer reviews and ensuing articles. Do you understand this process? Do you completely deny it has bogus? Researchers line up to peer-review, ie. peer criticize research. You are a fool as a researcher if you publish anything that can't be defended on its merits and "withstand the toughest falsifying evidence". You publish anything of significance that can't be verified, replicated and withstand critical peer review, you are toast. Research is competitive. It isn't cooperative where we all agree to support something that comes from poor methodology.

Your description of how science works is so inaccurate. No one claims it is perfect but these two claims you make right off the bat as fundamental positions on the integrity of science are truly ignorant.

No wonder you think like you do. So what matters? What's real? What you think is real because, well, its what you think?

Anyway ignore those questions. What do you gain from being so dismissive of science? Truly I want to know.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Galen no one is "anti-science". What I am saying and what I see Sirdowski saying is, Science either is or it isn't, meaning it is a proven fact, or there is still work left to be done to make it a fact. It's not a consensus.

I am sure you'll attack that in some way. But, I accept science and scientific facts. Unproven theories, majority consensus etc. I am not saying they're not true or won't be proven a fact, but as of yet, they are not.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

For the religious and non-religious it's Science vs the Bible. That is the
general argument and guys like Spammy and Galen will look down
on guys like Sirdowski and me who will defend the Bible and pray for
Spammy and Galen.

Some scientists regard the Bible as an antiquated collection of myths and primitive nonsense. In their worldview there is no place for intelligent design. Once they have dismissed the Bible they look down on believers as people still trapped in their outdated faith systems. The two sides appear to be locked in endless conflict.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

For the religious and non-religious it's Science vs the Bible. That is the
general argument and guys like Spammy and Galen will look down
on guys like Sirdowski and me who will defend the Bible and pray for
Spammy and Galen.

Some scientists regard the Bible as an antiquated collection of myths and primitive nonsense. In their worldview there is no place for intelligent design. Once they have dismissed the Bible they look down on believers as people still trapped in their outdated faith systems. The two sides appear to be locked in endless conflict.

Make sure you are also praying for the scientists that are developing the life-saving medicines that will actually improve and extend your life.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Galen no one is "anti-science". What I am saying and what I see Sirdowski saying is, Science either is or it isn't, meaning it is a proven fact, or there is still work left to be done to make it a fact. It's not a consensus.

I am sure you'll attack that in some way. But, I accept science and scientific facts. Unproven theories, majority consensus etc. I am not saying they're not true or won't be proven a fact, but as of yet, they are not.

I don't think you are anti-science; I think you are science-illiterate. There is a difference. Sirdunceski on the other hand is clearly anti-science. He appears to understand what is seen as the anti-science argument and endorses it. I imagine he would openly welcome the title of anti-science and wear it like a badge of honor. This is why I am interested in what he thinks he gains from dismissing science from his life.

Re: Official Divorce Agreement

I am curious as to what you gain from being so anti-science?

I appreciate intellectual integrity and verity. I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-scientific naturalist dogma. I have a huge problem in particular with the allowed elasticity of the word evolution. A shift in the relative number of dark colored moths is called evolution, and so is the creative process that produced the cell, the multicellular organism, the eye, and the human mind. The semantic implication is that evolution is fundamentally a single process, and Darwinists enthusiastically exploit that implication as a substitute for scientific evidence.

If the debate starts with those who think science can, does, will explain everything in the universe, you are starting the pro-science side of the debate at an extreme that just isn't true. This is a complete overstatement of a pro-science stance and immediately puts pro-science people in an impossible box. I know a lot of people who work at what would be described as scientists and I don't think any of them would subscribe to science's ability to determine everything. In fact, most true scientists marvel at the idea that as soon as we determine one thing, we open a dozen more questions that we don't know. Knowledge is truly infinite and we will always be chasing the questions that opens up from our previous answer. Scientists are usually more humbled by knowledge than arrogant as your premise begins.

It's fair to say I over generalized. I just fail to see what could possibly compel scientists to continually recycle vacuous theories other than a blind devotion to the humanist manifesto, the anthropic principle, naturalism, etc. Truly every field of science evolution touches, a negative trail of evidence isn't far behind.

This reeks of anger and is completely dismissive of the "peer review" that is a cornerstone of science. Any scientific experiment that yields data should be able to be replicated. I mean, c'mon, this is 7th grade science. As a grad student, I never read a single journal article without cross-referencing the peer reviews and ensuing articles. Do you understand this process? Do you completely deny it has bogus? Researchers line up to peer-review, ie. peer criticize research. You are a fool as a researcher if you publish anything that can't be defended on its merits and "withstand the toughest falsifying evidence". You publish anything of significance that can't be verified, replicated and withstand critical peer review, you are toast. Research is competitive. It isn't cooperative where we all agree to support something that comes from poor methodology.

So at what part of the peer review process is negative evidence simply equated to no evidence? How is it that over 100 years of determined efforts to confirm Darwinism have done no better than to find a few ambiguous supporting examples, and this isn't viewed as significant negative evidence? How about the the sudden explosion of complex life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian age? The difficulty of explaining the origin of the genetic code? The limits to change shown by breeding experiments? The punctuated equilibrium controversy? Or how about the importance of catastrophic extinctions? Why are these explained away?

The insults of scientific illiteracy on the part of NC and I is the same garbage many scientists use. They direct attention away from the questioned fundamentals, attempt to make the issue about the esoteric details supported by flawed fundamentals, which of course transcend our comprehension, and call us scientifically illiterate.

I ask you, empirically speaking, what is so compelling about evolution that would make me anti-science for not accepting its claims?